Invading Mexico to End the Cartels

Are there circumstances under which you would approve of invading Mexico to end the drug cartles?

  • No, never

    Votes: 24 61.5%
  • Only with permission and help from Mexico

    Votes: 13 33.3%
  • We don't need permission because we are the target of their drug trade

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Get allies to join us

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    39
Heroin legalization increases heroin use.
Iirc heroin use went down in Portugal after decriminalization

I'm all with you on letting people make thier own bad decisions.
The point is it's not for you to decide what's good or bad.

If you're not hurting others go for yours, not my business.

But yeah, if you're selling heroin or cooking meth in the basement under your kid's room, just go get in your cage.
So you can swap recipes w other meth dealers?

The consumer is paying, if there's no deceit or theft involved (or sale to minors) it's simply none of your business.
 
Naw, just so we're free of them for a period of time. Sometimes worth.
 
Right and if we lock up a few prostitutes men who goto prostitutes won't find replacement ones & find Jesus instead...

For 99.9% of people whether or not meth is legal or illegal will have no bearing on whether the do it or not and for .1% of people whether or not meth is legal or illegal will also have no bearing on whether the do it or not (only the risks they'll have to deal with, potential robberies, violence, jailtime, etc).

So you get to feel good seeing a bad hombre or two goto prison while nothing changes. Sounds productive...
 
Sounds as effective as invading Afghanistan to destroy terrorism. Suddenly the cartels are fighting the war against yanqui imperialism, and not just being murderous scum.
 
What if I told you... America has already invaded Mexico... and it wasn't so much to end the cartels...
 
If anyone here was born from 1996 through 1999 and call yourselves Zoomers because the rate of technology and social change is enough to shorten the length of a generation, you'd best not believe the thinking that led to mid 19th century adventurism is relevant to today's political decision making.

The rest of the millennials, carry on.
 
If anyone here was born from 1996 through 1999 and call yourselves Zoomers because the rate of technology and social change is enough to shorten the length of a generation, you'd best not believe the thinking that led to mid 19th century adventurism is relevant to today's political decision making.

The rest of the millennials, carry on.
it’s absolutely still relevant because people still subscribe to this chauvinistic “USA-tipped spear of freedom” nonsense. Man we are not even five years out from fleeing Afghanistan.
 
it’s absolutely still relevant because people still subscribe to this chauvinistic “USA-tipped spear of freedom” nonsense. Man we are not even five years out from fleeing Afghanistan.
And then we turned Kabul into a state of the union …
 
No one is going to blow up another USA skyscraper full of people again, or the response will be just as crazy as last time.

From 22 years ago:

Without evidence, Afghanistan's Taliban rulers will not hand over Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan said Friday.

The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No." But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."
 
oh , impressive . Imagining the next El Kaide will shy of blowing up skyscrapers because the response would be harsh . They will do it again .
 
Its hard for US to stay that military ready being in such a strategically isolated place. Some other countries are constantly at war and US hardly has any opponents on this side of the world. It's like that masonry technology from civ, 'from their foes not their friends that cities learned the lesson of building high walls'. Does USA really know what to expect?
 
The assumption that legalisation of the consumption of drugs increases use is a bit sloppy, probably bordering on a furphy.

The economics and mechanics of distribution change a lot when something is easier to get, and doesn't need to be produced in secret by bikies and transported and distributed in a concentrated form and sold surreptitiously at a high price.

Even with heroin or ice, it's probably wrong to think that in a hypothetical legalised framework those kind of nasty concentrated homebrew varieties of opiates or stimulants would be as prevalent as they are currently. Other forms would become cheaper, easier to get, not need to be hidden as much. Discernment and quality checks become much more feasible. Maybe you start seeing more opium smoking dens and less heroin injected into eyeballs I dunno.

It's a bit like assuming the legalisation of alcohol would specifically increase the consumption of the most risky, dangerous types of back shed moonshine.
 
Last edited:
And then we turned Kabul into a state of the union …
Oh yeah, like we did for the Philippines too, you're right, my bad.
 
Yes, this is what I kind of was trying to say. I mean.. USA took states from Mexico and are considered USA property still today.
Yes, that was in 1847! It's not Putin in Ukraine or Hitler grabbing the Sudtenland from Czechoslovakia. Yes, in 1847 when neither Italy or Germany existed as organized single states, when England controlled India and much of coastal China, and the Ottoman Empire was still a thing, and finally, it was when the locals had kicked Spain out of South America.

Things have changed. Putting US troops into Mexico won't happen.
 
Yes, this is what I kind of was trying to say. I mean.. USA took states from Mexico and are considered USA property still today.

I would suggest reading something like The Mexican Frontier. That area of northern America was already oriented toward the United States because of Mexico's over-centralized economic policy, which tried to force everything to flow to Vera Cruz. Not a fan of the Mexican War, and that book pretty much neutered my criticism of Gualupe-Hildalgo.
 
Yes, that was in 1847! It's not Putin in Ukraine or Hitler grabbing the Sudtenland from Czechoslovakia. Yes, in 1847 when neither Italy or Germany existed as organized single states, when England controlled India and much of coastal China, and the Ottoman Empire was still a thing, and finally, it was when the locals had kicked Spain out of South America.

Things have changed. Putting US troops into Mexico won't happen.


The fact that it is even being proposed says something about R primary voters...
 
I would suggest reading something like The Mexican Frontier. That area of northern America was already oriented toward the United States because of Mexico's over-centralized economic policy, which tried to force everything to flow to Vera Cruz. Not a fan of the Mexican War, and that book pretty much neutered my criticism of Gualupe-Hildalgo.
Except this is bog-standard propaganda justifying the war pretty much since the times of good ol' Manifest Destiny. The whole beleaguered notion that there was an unspoilt and underutilized terrain ripe for the taking from an inefficient centralized military dictatorship. Go us! Except you pretty much just have to go outside in California today to see how the whole thing's worked out.
 
Top Bottom